We are often asked why we say that reducing exposure to sources of RF and EMFs is important, especially as industry and governments say that they are safe.

We attach here evidence for restrictive guidelines written by international experts in the field of EMF research, to add to what we already have seen in the BioInitiative report.

The following is taken from the peer-reviewed and fully published paper (attached):-

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses

Common EMF sources include Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, Bluetooth devices, ELF magnetic fields from net currents, ELF electric fields from electric lamps and wiring close to the bed and office desk. There is strong evidence that long term exposure to certain EMF exposures is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease and male infertility. Also electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law.

The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of EMF at home and in the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable people with EHS to have access without discrimination.

Also the survival rate of children and adults with immune system disorders, and cancer depends on low ELF magnetic field exposure at home. Children with EMF exposure at home and at school have learning and behavioural problems.

If anyone is wondering if there is scientific evidence of the health effects of electromagnetic fields please download and read this paper (Electrosensitivity UK, March 2018) on Electrosensitivity & Electrohypersensitivity Studies.

It is also useful to send to anyone who questions the link between electromagnetism and the health of biological systems. It is a very useful reference of 2,000 Electrosensitivity & Electrohypersensitivity Studies.

In this video Guy Hudson talks about the Electric and Magnetic Power Frequencies Meter.

The PF5 is EMFields newest power-frequencies detector. The PF5 measures electric and magnetic EMFs from house wiring, including those from appliances at home at at work. The PF5, unlike most EMF meters on the market, also measures frequencies in the range from 20 Hz to well over 50 kHz. This enables the PF5 to measure the higher frequency electric and magnetic fields emitted by induction cooking hobs, solar-panel inverters, ‘energy-saving’ compact fluorescent (CFL) lamps and some LED lights.

These are amongst the most concerning new sources of our electromagnetic field exposures as the currents they induce in your body are proportional to the frequency. So a magnetic field at 25000 Hz (25 kHz) will induce 500 times more current in your body compared with same strength of field at 50 Hz. Induction hobs, in particular, induce some of the highest internal electric currents in your body in the VLF frequency range. Such currents have been shown to significantly affect the nervous system.

The PF5 is an easy to use, pocket sized, accurate, power-frequencies meter which is ideal for carrying around. It measures both electric and magnetic fields and is available labelled in either international microtesla (µT) units or in milliGauss (mG) units for America, Canada and Australia etc.

Two hundred and thirty four scientists from 41 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
All have published peer-reviewed research on Electromagnetic Fields and Health or Biology.

The International EMF Scientist Appeal serves as a credible and influential voice from EMF scientists who are urgently calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO and UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on EMF exposure.

The appeal was developed by a committee of the following scientists:

Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA

Magda Havas, Ph.D., Trent University, Canada

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Director, EMFscientist.org

Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, USA

Twenty-one of the 234 scientists have provided quotes which can be viewed here.

“GENERATION ZAPPED investigates the potential dangers of prolonged exposure to Radio Frequencies (RF) from wireless technology; its effects on our health and well-being, as well as the health and development of our children. From its links to breast and brain cancer, to its associations with increased infertility and genetic mutations related to autism and ADHD, to newly developed illnesses, such as Electrical Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS).”

A new film produced in the USA and lasts 70 minutes.

Dr George Carlo is a public health scientist, epidemiologist, lawyer, and the founder of the Science and Public Policy Institute. Dr George Carlo headed a $28.5 million research program funded by the cell phone industry from 1993 to 1999. He has appeared on 20/20, 60 Minutes, World News Tonight, CBS News with Dan Rather and The Today’s Show, as well as on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

He is the former head of Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) with a budget of $25million established concerns about cell phone use. Author of Cell Phones: Hidden Hazards in the Wireless Age, available on Amazon.

Dr George Carlo Generation Zapped

Guy Hudson & Beneficial Environments have a stand at the screening and conference.

Guy can advise you on how to protect yourself from everyday electrosmog.

Please drop by and say hello!

About Guy Hudson BSc MInstP

Guy is a physicist, engineer, EMF Audit & Surveying Professional & former CIO.
He is electrosensitive.
He is the CEO of Beneficial Environments.
Co-founder of Village Water.
Previously management consultant to telecoms industry.

Guy Hudson is an experienced physicist and engineer who is passionate about reducing electrosmog, not least, because he is electrosensitive. Guy was a speaker at the Get Wired 2015 Conference.

Here is one of his presentations.

Guy Hudson Electromagnetic Developments

Guy as CEO of Beneficial Environments is a leading surveyor and designer of low electrosmog environments. He has been trained by, and works with, leading Building Biologists in the UK and Germany. He is actively involved in developing cutting edge solutions that reduce electromagnetic pollution for electrosensitives and the general population who wish to reduce their exposure and risk.

He deals with a wide range of suppliers in Germany, China, US and UK to provide designs based on hard science and innovation for existing and new build environments.

This video is from the Get Wired 2015 conference and features Guy Hudson – Electromagnetic Life/Are we made of music?

The GetWired 2015 conference was sponsored by Beneficial Environments and was a response to concerns about the proliferation of wifi and mobile phone technologies.

The conference objective was to find and promote solutions to the problems arising both in terms of how to protect and shield vulnerable groups such as children and the aged but also how to encourage new safer products to be made available. In contrast to many conferences focusing on the health effects, we have looked at solutions to the problem of widespread electrosensitivity and increasing electromagnetic pollution.

Get Wired 2015 – Guy Hudson – Electromagnetic Life/Are we made of music?

Guy is an experienced physicist and engineer who is passionate about reducing electrosmog, not least, because he is electrosensitive.

Guy as CEO of Beneficial Environments is a leading surveyor and designer of low electrosmog environments. He has been trained by, and works with, leading Building Biologists in the UK and Germany. He is actively involved in developing cutting edge solutions that reduce electromagnetic pollution for electrosensitives and the general population who wish to reduce their exposure and risk.

He deals with a wide range of suppliers in Germany, China, US and UK to provide designs based on hard science and innovation for existing and new build environments.

A study has recently been published that provides the first evidence of a link between radio signals and nerve pain in people with amputated limbs. The senior author of the study, Dr Mario Romero-Ortega, said, “Our study provides evidence, for the first time, that subjects exposed to cellphone towers at low, regular levels can actually perceive pain”. The rats involved in the study received a nerve injury to simulate an amputation before being exposed to EMF signals equivalent to standing near a phone mast around 40 meters away for 10 minutes once a week for eight weeks. After just four weeks this short exposure time was enough to cause 88% of the rats to show a definite pain response to the signal. This study adds to the very real concerns associated with an excessive exposure to Electromagnetic Field sources, including electro-hypersensitivity, which has now been recognised as a functional disorder.

Anecdotal and clinical reports have suggested that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) may serve as a trigger for neuropathic pain. However, these reports have been widely disregarded, as the epidemiological effects of electromagnetic fields have not been systematically proven, and are highly controversial. Here, we demonstrate that anthropogenic RF EMFs elicit post-neurotomy pain in a tibial neuroma transposition model. Behavioral assays indicate a persistent and significant pain response to RF EMFs when compared to SHAM surgery groups. Laser thermometry revealed a transient skin temperature increase during stimulation. Furthermore, immunofluorescence revealed an increased expression of temperature sensitive cation channels (TRPV4) in the neuroma bulb, suggesting that RF EMF-induced pain may be due to cytokine-mediated channel dysregulation and hypersensitization, leading to thermal allodynia. Additional behavioral assays were performed using an infrared heating lamp in place of the RF stimulus. While thermally-induced pain responses were observed, the response frequency and progression did not recapitulate the RF EMF effects. In vitro calcium imaging experiments demonstrated that our RF EMF stimulus is sufficient to directly contribute to the depolarization of dissociated sensory neurons. Furthermore, the perfusion of inflammatory cytokine TNF-α resulted in a significantly higher percentage of active sensory neurons during RF EMF stimulation. These results substantiate patient reports of RF EMF-pain, in the case of peripheral nerve injury, while confirming the public and scientific consensus that anthropogenic RF EMFs engender no adverse sensory effects in the general population.

INTRODUCTION

Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have become a ubiquitous presence in modern life. A broad spectral band of EMF frequencies (50 Hz–5 GHz) are now passing around us and through us, and are generated by sources ranging from electricity transport to mobile communication devices. While we have all undoubtedly benefited from the wide-ranging applications of commercial electronics, there is a growing social and scientific concern that persistent exposure to radio- and microwave-frequency (RF/MWF) EMFs may engender unforeseen adverse health effects in vulnerable subsets of our population.

Over the past thirty years, there have been numerous reports published on the epidemiological, animal, and cellular-level effects of RF EMF exposure [1–3], with the majority of these studies being conducted in vitro and focused on evaluating the potential relationship between cell phone usage and the incidence of certain types of cancer [4–6]. Many conclusions drawn from this field of study remain highly controversial [7,8], but sufficient evidence regarding EMF-tissue interactions has resulted in the adoption of national and international standards for health and occupational EMF exposure. More recently, there have also been anecdotal, case, and clinical reports that magnetic and electromagnetic fields of various frequencies may serve as a trigger for neuropathic and post-amputation pain [9–11].

“Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis at hand and time is of the essence.” – Magda Havas, PhD – Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current.

“Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.” – Martin Blank, PhD – Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins.

Other quotes on the adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields can be found here

Thankfully there are ways to protect yourself from adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields. Beneficial Environments has solutions to reduce your everyday electromagnetic pollution. We can also carry out electromagnetic surveys in your home, clinic or office.

By the early 1970s, the great forests of West Germany were dying. The Germans suspected the cause was industrial pollution that resulted from the tremendous post-Word War II economic growth. Eventually research studies would reveal the link between industrial pollution, acid rain, and deforestation. But in the face of potentially irreversible damage to an irreplaceable national treasure, the Germans decided to act before they had definitive proof by passing the groundbreaking Clean Air Act of 1974 to limit industrial emissions. In doing so, the Germans adopted a new approach to countering environmental risks. The subsequent decades have seen Vorsorgeprinzip (literally, the “precautionary principle”) become an underlying principle of German environmental legislation.

The Precautionary Principle instructs us that in the face of serious threats, a lack of scientific certainty never justifies inaction.

The BioInitiative Report (BIR) has its origins among members of the BioElectroMagnetics Society (BEMS), on which Martin Blank served as president in 2007. A year earlier a mini-symposium took place in 2006 with members of BEMS and from the scheduled talks and discussions, the key learnings were:

Safety standards built around protecting humans from thermal effects of EMF radiation completely fail to consider the many fundamental biological processes, well documented to be affected by EMF at nonthermal levels.

The energy thresholds for biological damage are very low, and so the thresholds for potentially negative health effects are probably also very low.

Simultaneous exposure to different frequency ranges could have additive effects on the exposed humans; similarly, effects of cumulative exposures must also be considered.

The spark set off at the symposium led the participants to form the BioInitiative Working Group that eventually organized the BioInitiative Report (BIR). The BIR (you can download it from here) reviewed a wide collection of scientific evidence obtained in connection with studies on RF/MW exposure (which are rapidly increasing). but also included studies of power-line ELF.

The Precautionary Principle and the BioInitiative Report is a proactive policy to protect citizens from potentially adverse environmental influences when information about the risks they present is incomplete.

The BIR was updated in 2012, and the Precautionary Principle still applies, although it is important to remember that the application of the Precautionary Principle is designed as an interim step – a stopgap measure. The risks of continued inaction are simply too great.

While many of continue to push for improved regulatory scrutiny of EMF emissions, you should not wait for such action.

There are steps you can and should take as an individual to minimize your exposure to potentially harmful EMF radiation, without going back to the stone age.

Adapted from “Overpowered” by Martin Blank PhD, chapter 11, The Precautionary Principle and the BioInitiative Report.

At Beneficial Environments we sell products that minimize such exposure.